PratchettFan
Gold Member
- Jun 20, 2012
- 7,238
- 746
- 190
Constitution 2.0 does away with the concepts of States and individual rights or libertiesAhem. This thread is not about what is in the existing Constitution. This thread is about what we would want in a new one. Unless an existing clause is retained and ratified in the new Constitution, all existing constitutional law becomes null and void upon adoption of a new improved version as will all federal law that is overridden by the new version.
In effect we are completely reorganizing a new and improve federal government for the United States of America....IF....we retain the federal system of government.
I would say a more rational approach would be not to go backwards. If we are going to remove anything it should be the states. Rather than semi-autonomous governments, they should be provinces and all fall under federal control.
Why?
Because we no longer live in an 18th century agrarian economy consisting of 13 colonies with vastly different structures. People living in Maine have no different needs than those living in California, which was not the case in 1776. What happens in Oregon has a direct impact on what happens in Alabama. What states do is allow pockets of rights based upon local politics. In a modern nation, my rights should not change simply because I cross a state line. If we are going to change the basic legal document, then we should become a single nation.
The fault in your logic is that the federal government should be superior to the state government ... leading to what we have now.
The federal government should have specific enumerated responsibilities, and a ban on exceeding those responsibilities. All else should be left to the state or local governments (as defined in the specific state constitution).
We have done that and it didn't work. State and local governments are far more susceptible to corruption than a central government and have a far greater and direct impact upon the citizen. If we are to remain one nation we need one government. If not, then we should break up into 50 different nations, at which point half of the country will join the ranks of the third world.